predestination defined
I recently was asked to officially state my position on God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in salvation by a national ministry. They asked to keep it in a summary form [because we all know one could write volumes on the minutiae of the topic]. Please find below my best shot at describing my viewpoint.
[This can be considered an extension of the Calvinism & Free Will & The Heritage of Sin entry]
First, predestination is a doctrine plainly set forth in the Bible. If we desire to build our theology on the Bible, the issue is not whether we should have a doctrine of predestination, but what kind should we embrace.
With that said, I believe that predestination, in its most elementary form, is that our final destination, heaven or hell, is decided by God before we are born [Ephesians 1:4-5]. In other words, from all eternity, before we ever live, God made a choice-he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven, also known as the elect, and others he chose to pass over, to allow them to follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment into hell, also known as reprobates [Romans 8:29].
The cry against predestination usually culminates in the determination that it is not fair. If by fair, we mean equal, then the protest is accurate. Probably what is meant by fair is just. But if all men are guilty of sin in the sight of God, and from the mass of guilty humanity, God sovereignly gives mercy to some, what do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. No one gets injustice. Or better, justice is not injustice, as some might argue.
What follows is usually a concern about protecting the dignity and freedom of man. But we first must observe the importance of God”s sovereignty. The reason we must start with God”s sovereignty is that if God is the supreme authority over heaven and earth, all other authority is lesser authority. As a part of God”s sovereignty or authority is the idea that God foreordains whatever comes to pass [interestingly, this is not an idea unique to Calvinism, but simply a tenet, and a necessary one at that, of theism].
Moving on to the idea of free will, I would define it as Jonathan Edwards has in On the Freedom of the Will. Edwards calls it “mind choosing” which means that before we ever can make moral choices we first have some idea of what it is we are choosing. Our selection is then based upon what the mind approves or rejects. If the mind is not involved, then the choice is made for no reason and with no reason. It becomes an arbitrary and morally meaningless act.
According to Edwards, a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined. But determined does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one”s internal motivation or desire. In short, our choices are determined by our desires.
So how do we “get an idea” of what we are “choosing” when it comes to salvation? Though I believe that the will is a natural ability given to us by God to make choices, the problem is we lack the moral ability to choose God. Before we can choose Christ, we must first have a desire for Christ. And in the Fall, man lost his original desire for God. The only way for man to have a desire to choose Christ, he must first receive that desire from God. Regeneration precedes faith [John 6:65].
So how do we interface God”s sovereignty with human freedom? First, it should be said that these two ideas are not contradictions that we must embrace [since the Bible teaches both things]. If in fact they were contradictions, that would reveal that the Bible is errant.
I believe that the “interface” reveals that this is a mystery, as opposed to a contradiction, of great proportions. Mystery refers to that which is true but we do not understand. It is easy to confuse mystery and contradiction. We do not understand either of them. All contradictions are mysterious. Not all mysteries are contradictions. Christianity has plenty of room for mysteries, but none for contradictions.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Right on Brad…I really like this part:
“First, predestination is a doctrine plainly set forth in the Bible. If we desire to build our theology on the Bible, the issue is not whether we should have a doctrine of predestination, but what kind should we embrace.”
I have heard many say that they simply don’t believe in predestion. As you said that’s going to be problematic if we are going to take the Bible seriously. What I personally find more unsettling is the attitude that these things don’t really matter, but that is to say that a truth which God the Holy Spirit gave to us through the Apostles doesn’t matter.
You raise an excellent point:
The cry against predestination usually culminates in the determination that it is not fair. If by fair, we mean equal, then the protest is accurate. Probably what is meant by fair is just. But if all men are guilty of sin in the sight of God, and from the mass of guilty humanity, God sovereignly gives mercy to some, what do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. No one gets injustice. Or better, justice is not injustice, as some might argue.
Well, what is justice? You have described one element of it, yes - the rewarding and punishing of deeds. By this standard of justice we are all damned to hell withstanding any intercession on our behalf.
But consider another deffinition of justice/injustice: that all are treated equally. It is that type of justice that I think hardline predestination as determainism violates. God is God and He may do what He pleases. I am in no position to argue with Him. But, when He says He is no respecter of persons, I take Him at His word. I expect that He gives all the same shot. That is where I translate predestination as foreknowledge. I earnestly seek the truth in this matter I and I wholy suspect you and bob and Hank do the same so I foster no ill will towards any of you on this doctrinal difference.
Oh, oh, there is so much more to talk about. (Not in a agravated way, but an alternate point of view sort of way) I think I will write up a post about it. I would do it now, but I have three more articles to read on Augustine.
I just started reading more about predestination. One thing that I hope to understand better is how Islam’s determinism differs from Christian’s foreknowledge/predestination doctrine.
If you blog on this subject, let me know.
Edgar,
Brad,
I like what you had to say about justice. I sometimes forget to bring up that point,
The cry against predestination usually culminates in the determination that it is not fair. If by fair, we mean equal, then the protest is accurate. Probably what is meant by fair is just. But if all men are guilty of sin in the sight of God, and from the mass of guilty humanity, God sovereignly gives mercy to some, what do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. No one gets injustice. Or better, justice is not injustice, as some might argue.
Thank you for that reminder. I love to read your posts and comments.
Henry Michael,
God back and look up the context of where God says he is not a respecter of persons. In regards to salvation, the text is refering to how God does not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles. He will save and judge both. One place, in Colossians, God cannot be bribed out of punishment. The setence of “God is no respector of persons” does not speak of election. It is not about election. Check my blog for a post on how in fact God would be unrighteous if he did not predestine and unconditionally elect.
It speaks of God’s character. In the specific, God is saything that salvation, justice, is not for some, but open to all. The application of His true character in the situation He was talking to Peter about lead to the specific wording and let us in on His character.
But you’ll notice this does not say how/strong> God saves people. It just says that God does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile, Greek or barbarian, male or female, free or slave. If a person is deserving of justice, then they will get justice. If that person comes to faith, GOd will save them. It doesn’t matter. But these texts do not say anything about God cannot have elected some and passed over others. It is not there. A person has to put that there.
I’ve been studying the subject for a bit now, and I just re-read your post.
“According to Edwards, a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined. But determined does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one”s internal motivation or desire. In short, our choices are determined by our desires”
One question with this quote is: how does Human Nature relate to “Desires”. My concern is that God predestines every choice and desire - even the bad ones so how am I responsible for my Sin when he has predestined my “human nature” to be sinful?
As a believer, it is great I’m one he predestined to salvation. But how do we explain this to unbelievers?
Thoughts?
E.I. Sanchez,
I have posted your question on the front page in hopes of illicitting responses to your questions.
thank you for what i have read it is just what we need to learn about our salvation
Go a step beyond, and ask, If God designed all future actions of man, how is eternal punishment justice for any? If God planned the history of all mans actions, then the future was fixed and could not have gone any other way. Predestination and free will are indeed contradictions, the problem is not a mystery but is obvious to any person who does not put his desire of what he wants to be true ahead of what is slapping him in the face. The direct statements found in the Bible that seem to be contradictions are not mysteries but concrete evidense that the text can not be trusted.
As it happens, I just blogged on the same topic as part of a book review.
If you’re interested:
http://www.thechristianalert.org/blog/index.php/Bibliography/2006/09/28/popular_objections_to_calvinism
Your closing paragraph is a good observation.
“All contradictions are mysterious. Not all mysteries are contradictions. Christianity has plenty of room for mysteries, but none for contradictions.”
God bless,